Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75062 (KAR)

SANCTUARY ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/56733/2018 · 2025-11-03

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44335 WP No. 56733 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56733 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SANCTUARY ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.31, 4TH CROSS, 8TH A MAIN, RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560080 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR AND DULY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. ANSHUL CHODHA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVARAJ K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP HEAD OFFICE PREMISES N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH MALLESHWARAM DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU-560003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44335 WP No. 56733 of 2018 SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 07.12.2018 AND BEARING REFERENCE NO.AA.VY (H)/PR/194/18-19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice bearing No.D.ªÉÊ.(ªÀÄ)/¦Dgï/194/18-19 dated 07.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.3. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an architectural firm operating its activities from the premises bearing No.31, 4th cross, 8th A Main Road, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru. It contends that the built-up area of the building is about 3500 sq. ft. and a portion thereof is used as an office space. When things stood thus, the respondent No.3 issued a notice, which was received by the petitioner on 07.12.2018, by which, the petitioner was directed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44335 WP No. 56733 of 2018 to forthwith shut down its office as it was running commercial activities in a residential zone. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 17.12.2018 to the respondent No.3 and since the respondents have not taken any decision on the reply so submitted, the petitioner apprehending that the respondent No.3 may take precipitative action has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises in question is used for commercial activity even before the Revised Master Plan 2015 (for short, ’RMP 2015’) was in force. He submits that notwithstanding the above, a portion of the residential premises could be used for professional activity even as per the RMP 2015. He, therefore, contends that the activity undertaken by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a commercial activity in a residential area. He submits that it is for the respondent No.3 to take a decision on the reply submitted and every attempt is being made by the respondent No.3 to close down the premises of the petitioner without considering its reply. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44335 WP No. 56733 of 2018 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that it is the respondent No.3, who has to take a decision on the reply submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and also in the light of the RMP 2015. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is appropriate to dispose off this writ petition on the following terms: Respondent No.3 or the concerned Officer shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Until then, respondent No.3 or the concerned Officer shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner or the premises in question. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59